georgetown university press biotechnology and the human good may 2007

At the sametime, it seems, every power of mastery over nature also brings with itgreater power for mastery over other human beings, and every inchcloser to technological utopia seems to

HUMAN GOOD

AND

T H E

13-digit 10-digit

Paperback: 978-1-58901-138-0 Paperback: 1-58901-138-4

Georgetown University Press, Washington, D.C www.press.georgetown.edu

2007 by Georgetown University Press All rights reserved No part of this

book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic ormechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by any information

storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.Biotechnology and the human good / C Ben Mitchell [et al.]

p ; cm

Includes bibliographical references and index

ISBN 1-58901-138-4 (alk paper)

1 Biotechnology—Moral and ethical aspects 2 Medical ethics

3 Values I Mitchell, C Ben

[DNLM: 1 Biotechnology—ethics 2 Christianity 3 Genetic

Engineering—ethics TP 248.23 B615 2006]

TP248.23.B566 2006

 ⬁ This book is printed on acid-free paper meeting the requirements

of the American National Standard for Permanence in Paper for

Printed Library Materials

First printing

Printed in the United States of America

Preface vii Acknowledgments

S I X

Biotechnology, Human Enhancement, and the Ends of

Medicine 110

S E V E N

Conclusion: Toward a Foundation for Biotechnology

137

Notes 159 Authors and Collaborators

193 Index 197

LISTENING to Kevin Warwick, a professor of cybernetics at theUniversity of Reading in England, enthuse about his research is likelistening to a prepubescent schoolboy describing his trip to DisneyWorld Warwick claims to be the world’s first cyborg: part human, partmachine On Monday, August 24, 1998, he had a silicon chip tran-sponder surgically implanted in his forearm Once fitted with this newimplant, he returned to his laboratory, where the doors opened auto-matically, lights turned on as he walked into rooms, and his computergreeted him every morning As thrilling as this was, it was only thebeginning.

In March 2002, Warwick embarked on Project Cyborg 2.0 Thistime, surgeons at Oxford’s Radcliffe Infirmary implanted a 100-micro-electrode array directly into the median nerve fibers of his left arm Thisnew device allowed the professor’s nervous system, including his brain,

to be connected directly to a computer As a result, Warwick was able

to control a robotic arm in his lab, drive an electric wheelchair withminimal hand movement, and, through a secret Internet connection,control an articulated robotic arm on another continent He was bothable to send signals across the ocean and receive them directly into hisnervous system

Warwick’s wife, Irena, volunteered to have a similar implant placed

in her wrist, allowing husband and wife to ‘‘communicate’’ directlythrough the computer, thereby becoming the world’s first cyborgcouple

Warwick’s excitement about his experiments is almost ing, and for good reason This new technology may one day be used

overwhelm-to treat many types of neuromuscular disorders A robotic prosthesismay restore arms, legs, or other appendages lost through injury Even-tually, says Warwick, the technology may allow us to communicate ouremotional states directly to another person But the same technologymay also be used to create armies of efficient cyborg killers With thecomputational power of a laptop computer and a rather basic knowl-edge of microbiology, one can now manipulate living organisms inone’s own basement lab, creating who knows what? Technology, in-cluding biotechnology, may be used for evil ends as easily as for goodpurposes, and this worries Warwick But what is one to do? Technol-ogy marches on

If we understand technology to include any work-producing sion of the body of an individual, then the first person to use a stick tomake a hole in which to plant a seed was a technologist In fact, toolmaking was one of the first human technological advances Human be-ings are by nature technologists Therefore, biotechnology is a funda-mentally human endeavor

exten-Nevertheless, when the media announce a new biotechnologicaldevelopment—such as the possibility of human cloning or the creation

of animal–human hybrids—there is a collective gasp How do we count for what some might describe as our schizophrenic reactions tobiotechnology? How do we test our intuitions about emergingbiotechnologies?

ac-The University of Montana philosopher of technology Albert mann has wryly observed that reactions to emerging biotechnologies,including cybernetics and artificial intelligence, ‘‘are as divided as theyare to carnival rides—they produce exhilaration in some people and ver-tigo in others’’ (‘‘On the Blessings of Calamity and the Burdens of

Borg-Good Fortune,’’ Hedgehog Review 4 [Fall 2002]: 7–24).

Techno-exhilaration and techno-vertigo are intuitional responses tothese new technologies Some technologies call on our adrenal glands

to work overtime because of the breathtaking nature of new powerwithin our grasp From biplanes, to space flight, to moon walks, thehuman heart races with anticipation at the next great achievement

From blood transfusions, to the discovery of DNA, to gene therapy,the passion for knowledge pushes us into new frontiers At the sametime, it seems, every power of mastery over nature also brings with itgreater power for mastery over other human beings, and every inchcloser to technological utopia seems to be another step toward techno-logical oblivion.

This book is the effort of a multidisciplinary group of physicians, tists, philosophers, ethicists, theologians, and a lawyer to grapple withthese questions and to offer a way of thinking about technology—especially biotechnology—that we hope will make sense of some of ourintuitions However, a warning is in order History has shown thatsome of our intuitions about biotechnology are wrong and should bequestioned For instance, in the seventeenth century, blood transfu-sions were outlawed in France and England Now more than 39 millionunits of blood and blood products are transfused every year in theUnited States alone The intuition that it was wrong to transfer blood—the elixir of life, as it is sometimes called—has been revised over time

scien-(For an intriguing account of this history, see Pete Moore, Blood and

Justice: The 17th Century Parisian Doctor Who Made Blood Transfusion History [San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2002].) So part of the purpose of

this book will be to test our intuitions about biotechnology

Chapter 1 surveys the rapidly expanding arena of human ogy Technologies such as genetic manipulation, cybernetics, robotics,and nanotechnology not only offer great hope for therapeutic interven-tions but also portend potentially devastating challenges to our under-standing of what it means to be human and, in some instances, to ourhumanity itself Genetic enhancements, some argue, may lead humanbeings to a technologically achieved immortality But at what cost toour humanity?

biotechnol-Chapter 2 critiques several narrative philosophies that offer ments for or against technological expansion Though by no means theonly narrative, what the American studies professor David E Nye callsthe ‘‘second-creation narrative’’ seems to be a dominant theme of theWestern story of technological achievement Without modification, thisnarrative seems to be an insufficient ground for our biotechnological

argu-agenda A narrative of morally responsible stewardship, however, offersboth an impetus for biotechnology and realism about the potential formisuses of biotechnology In our view, biotechnology is a qualifiedgood and should be pursued with vigor, but not without caution Weare not determinists when it comes to biotechnology We do not believe

that because we can do something we ought to do it; or that once we

can do something, it is inevitable that we will do it On the contrary,

as stewards, we believe biotechnology should be used to relieve humansuffering and to protect human dignity, without relieving humans oftheir very humanity

Chapter 3 explores several competing worldviews that inform ourattitudes toward biotechnology Philosophical naturalism has almostimperialistic status in the sciences in general and in biotechnology inparticular We argue that philosophical naturalism is limited and reduc-tionist Alternatively, though environmentalist biocentrism, or deepecology, is more protective of living organisms, the movement leads toundervaluing the human species vis-a`-vis other species We maintainthat Judeo-Christian theism offers a more satisfying way to frame thegoals of biotechnology because it offers a view of human dignity, com-bined with a purposive history, that warrants therapeutic applications

of biotechnology without either sanctioning the wholesale modification

of the human species or overprotecting the environment to the ment of the human species

detri-In chapter 4, we elucidate a view of human dignity that ought tounderwrite the biotechnological enterprise The notion of human dig-nity emerges from a lengthy, and sometimes painful, history in the Westand has significantly shaped our understanding of human rights, includ-ing the protection of human subjects in research Assaults againsthuman dignity have led to some of the darkest days in history, includingAmerican chattel slavery, the Holocaust in Nazi Germany, and viola-tions of human rights in scientific experimentation Only a robust un-derstanding and protection of human dignity can prevent us fromrepeating the horrors of the past When properly understood, humandignity is—or can become—a shared value for informing law andpolicy

Does the idea of human dignity entail complete control over one’sfuture destiny, including, if one freely chooses, altering or even jettison-ing one’s body? Chapter 5 examines the contemporary penchant forautonomous control that seems to be driving many of those who areuncritical proponents of biotechnology A renewed appreciation forhuman embodiment and community would resist the neo-Gnostictendencies of twenty-first century biotechnology.

Chapter 6 provides a historical and conceptual framework for ing about the nature of morally responsible stewardship in relation tothe goals of medicine Are enhancement technologies consistent withthe teleology of medicine? We argue that they are not Moreover, wemaintain that some biotechnologies fatally compromise the physician–patient relationship, turning patients into consumers and physiciansinto mere contractors Medicine ought to resist being co-opted by anarcissistic, consumerist culture

think-In chapter 7, we offer a series of profound questions that must beanswered if technology is to serve human needs and goals In the lastsection of the chapter, we bring a philosophical and theological frame-work to bear on biotechnology We believe that it is not only appro-priate but also necessary to question biotechnology—not to stop it, but

to keep it honest We also believe that by asking the hard questionsabout biotechnology, we can move together toward a truly human fu-ture in which therapy, healing, and health can be preserved withoutforfeiting medicine to the whims of a dysfunctional utopianism

READERS will notice that we do not identify an author for eachchapter of this book This directly reflects our methodology After thebook’s authors and external reviewers were chosen, the team met for atwo-day retreat Each of us presented our initial thoughts about thegoals and content of the project After extensive critiques, we agreed

on a trajectory for the book Next, each author presented a draft script on one of the topics for the book The drafts were reviewed byeach author; by the project director, C Christopher Hook, M.D.; and

manu-by several external reviewers, including Paige Comstock Cunningham,J.D., and Gilbert C Meilaender, Ph.D In addition, two reviewers out-side North America commented on the essays—from Australia, GrahamCole, Ph.D., and from Ireland, Stephen Williams, Ph.D.—providingwelcome and helpful international perspectives

Additional feedback was received when second drafts of the materialwere presented to a larger audience during the ‘‘Remaking Humanity?’’conference sponsored by the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity

in Bannockburn, Illinois The ongoing conversation and collaborationcontinued as the team met twice to review the external feedback andself-critiques The final review was completed early in 2006 We wouldespecially like to thank the outside commentators for helping us focusour thinking Without their extraordinarily helpful comments, the bookwould not have come together as it has

In sum, this book is the product of substantial longitudinal ration and conversation, with each person making significant contribu-tions to each chapter of the whole

collabo-We are very grateful for the financial support this project has receivedfrom the William H Donner Foundation, New York, and fromFieldstead & Company, Irvine, California, and for administrative sup-port from the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity.

Our deepest thanks go to the project editor, Louise Kaegi, M.A.,who gave the book one voice Louise writes on health care, ethics, edu-cation, and cultural politics, was formerly executive editor of the Joint

Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations’ Joint

Com-mission Benchmark newsletter, and has written articles on health care

for other newsletters, such as Minority Nurse We would also like to

thank Michael Sleasman, a doctoral candidate and friend at TrinityEvangelical Divinity School, in Deerfield, Illinois, for his bibliographicassistance with a part of the project

This book belongs largely in the genre of bioethics Bioethics may

be the most salient contemporary example of interdisciplinary research

If there were ever a time when one scholar, working solely in her office,could become an expert on all the topics under her discipline, that dayhas passed With the explosive development of biotechnology, the bur-geoning growth of specialties and subspecialties, and the large output

of literature, collaborative research will be increasingly necessary Weapplaud Chris Hook’s vision for the type of deep collaboration repre-sented in this volume Likewise, we are grateful to Georgetown Univer-sity Press and its director, Richard Brown, for recognizing theimportance of this work We hope that other presses will understandhow important collaborative research is in this area and will supportcolleagues in their joint labors in bioethics

The Rapidly Changing World

of Biotechnology

We reduce things to mere Nature in order that we may ‘‘conquer’’ them.

We are always conquering Nature, because ‘‘Nature’’ is the name for what

we have, to some extent, conquered The price of conquest is to treat a

thing as mere Nature As long as this process stops short of the final

stage, we may well hold that the gain outweighs the loss But as soon as

we take the final step of reducing our own species to the level of mere

Nature, the whole process is stultified, for this time the being who stood

to gain and the being who has been sacrificed are one and the same

—C S Lewis, The Abolition of Man

tools made from plants and stones to our digital computers, cardiacpacemakers, pharmaceuticals, and the ubiquitous media of communica-

tion and transportation Human beings are toolmakers; we are Homo

faber Although other animals demonstrate the ability to use elements

of their environments as simple tools, such as otters using stones toopen the shells of mollusks, humankind is marked by its whole-scalecommitment to develop and use new tools It is hard for human beings

to even image a world without the use of tools of some kind Further, it

is doubtful that as a species Homo sapiens would survive without tools,

without technology

Biotechnology is a set of technologies specifically aimed at lating living things, including human beings themselves, arguablyfor the common good Some of the most amazing tools of the pastfifty years have appeared in the sphere of medical biotechnology—

manipu-antibiotics, psychopharmaceuticals and other drugs, and recombinanttechnologies that produce hormones or clotting factors (e.g., insulin,erythropoeitin, or Factor VIII for hemophiliacs), gene manipulationthat produces disease or pest resistance in crops, and engineered drugs

to treat cancer (e.g., imatinib mesylate, or Gleevec, for chronic enous leukemia, or rituximab for the treatment of lymphoma and anincreasing number of autoimmune diseases) For the purposes of ourdiscussion, biotechnology also includes tools that directly interact withthe systems of the body for the purposes of diagnosis, health restora-tion, and disability amelioration This category of biotechnologies in-cludes organ and blood cell transplantation, pacemakers, new forms oforthopedic appliances, genetic testing and the first forays into genetherapy, neural implants to treat Parkinson’s disease or depression, and

myelog-a whole host of tools myelog-and tremyelog-atments now common in medicmyelog-al prmyelog-actice.Many of these advances have been welcomed enthusiastically,whereas others have been greeted with skepticism or open hostility(e.g., genetically modified food) Increasingly, discussions about themeans of biotechnology have joined controversies about its ends Wit-ness the heated debate about embryonic stem cell research, or abouthuman cloning with a goal of developing new treatments for seriousdiseases like Parkinson’s disease, juvenile diabetes, and a host of others.Increasingly, biotechnologies are being created and used not fortherapeutic ends but for the purpose of ‘‘enhancing’’ mental or athleticfunction or altering physical appearance.1 Breast implants and othercosmetic surgery, anabolic steroids and erythropoeitin, botulinumtoxin (Botox), methylphenydate (Ritalin), and SSRI (selective seroto-nin reuptake inhibitors) antidepressants (e.g., Paxil, Prozac, and Cel-exa) are being used not for the purpose of healing or restoring but inthe hope of making us ‘‘better than well.’’2In 2004, just under $12.5billion was spent in the United States on cosmetic procedures (surgeryand nonsurgical such as Botox injections), a value far greater than tentimes that committed to research for a cure or more effective treatmentsfor malaria, still one of the world’s major killers.3New agents that arebeing developed to treat memory impairment in dementing diseasessuch as Alzheimer’s disease are expected to have a huge market among

those who simply want to improve their memory for socially tive reasons.4

competi-Revisiting Eugenics

One of the most remarkable biotechnology projects of the past fifteenyears has been the discovery of the human genetic code, in the HumanGenome Project (HGP) Yet much has been written about the potentialsources of harm and benefit in this new knowledge about the code oflife Will we have to again endure the abuses of the past performed inthe name of some eugenic ideal? We are already engaging in both posi-tive and negative eugenics through the use of prenatal and preimplanta-tion genetic diagnosis Some are more concerned that the eugenicprograms we face now and in the future will not so much be state sanc-tioned (although there are governments around the world explicitlypromoting eugenic programs5) but rather will be coerced socially by a

‘‘eugenics of the marketplace.’’6 Several authors have quite explicitlystated not only that eugenics in some form is inevitable but also thatgenetically reengineering the human species is desirable.7Thus one set

of questions before us as the community of humankind, and as uals, is: Should we deliberately reengineer human beings by geneticmanipulation? Should we use our genetic knowledge to determine whatkind of people will be allowed to exist?

individ-Bypassing Genetics and Reproduction

Other technologies are being rapidly developed, however, that will able human beings to reengineer themselves without the need to in-volve genetic and reproductive mechanisms Rather, the existing personwill soon be offered an array of means to remake himself or herself viatissue reconstruction or prosthetic enhancement These additionalmeans of human reengineering are cybernetics and nanotechnology.Because many readers may be less familiar with these fields than withthe potential for genetic manipulation, we will present a brief overview

en-of them and their potential for producing tools for reengineeringhumankind.8

Cybernetics

Cybernetics in its purest definition is the science of ‘‘control and

com-munication in the animal and the machine’’ and was devised as a field

by Norbert Weiner in the 1940s The word is derived from the Greek

for steersman, kybernetes In The Human Use of Human Beings, Weiner

wrote that ‘‘society can only be understood through a study of the sages and the communication facilities which belong to it; and that inthe future development of these messages and communication facilities,messages between man and machines, between machines and man, andbetween machine and machine, are destined to play an ever-increasingpart.’’9

mes-In his mes-Introduction to Cybernetics, W Ross Ashby noted that this

theory of machines focuses not on what a thing is but on what it does:

‘‘Cybernetics deals with all forms of behavior insofar as they are regular,

or determinate, or reproducible The materiality is irrelevant.’’10nizing that there are significant similarities in biological and mechanicalsystems, subsequent researchers have pursued the ideal of merging bio-logical and mechanical/electrical systems into what Manfred Clynes

Recog-and Nathan S Kline termed cyborgs or cybernetic organisms.11 In thissense, cybernetics has taken on the meaning of adding prostheses to thehuman, or animal, body to replace lost function or to augment biologi-cal activity

Humans have long used tools to augment various functions, and forcenturies they have also intimately attached some of these tools to theirbodies Filled or artificial teeth, glasses and contact lenses, hearing aids,pacemakers, and/or artificial limbs are all examples of this phenome-non Recently, significant advances in the fields of neuroscience andcomputer technology have made possible the direct interface of animal

or human nervous systems with electromechanical devices A few ples in this evolving field are the creation of neural-silicon junctionsinvolving transistors and neurons to prepare neuronal circuits, the re-mote control of mechanical manipulator arms by implants inserted into

exam-the motor cortex of owl monkeys, and remote controlling rats to moveover a directed path via implanted electrodes and a computer moder-ated joystick.12

Investigators at the Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics

in Tu¨bingen, Germany, have successfully grown connections betweenthe neurons of several species of animals and transistors, allowing two-way communication through the silicon-neuronal junction Research-ers at Infineon Technologies in Munich, working in collaboration withthe Max Planck group, announced the development of the ‘‘neuro-chip.’’ This device has greater than 16,000 sensors per square millime-ter and is able to record at least 2,000 readings per second (or in aggre-gate, 32 million information values per second) Neurons are kept alive

in a special nutrient fluid that coats the chip’s surface The architecture

of the chip ensures that each neuron in the matrix covers at least onesensor Thus without the need to invade the structure of the neuronsthemselves, the chip can maintain prolonged undisturbed interactionsbetween neurons and measure and process the flow of informationthrough the neuronal network.13

Significant strides have also been made in understanding and ulating the sense of vision In 1999, Garrett B Stanley and colleagues

manip-at the University of California, Berkeley, were able to measure the ronal activity of the optical pathway of a cat via 177 electrical probes,process the information, and recreate rough images of what the cat’seyes were viewing at the moment Though the images were of fairlypoor resolution (similar to the degree of resolution of computed to-mography [CT] scans in the early 1980s), it is only a matter of im-proved signal processing to be able to produce more exact images.14

neu-The implication of this line of research is that if we can decode thevisual images from their neural representations, we will in time beequally capable of directly transmitting ‘‘visual’’ images into a recipi-ent’s brain, bypassing the use of, or need for, light-collecting visualorgans

Although this sort of technology could become the ultimate tool forvirtual reality, the most important potential is for the restoration ofsight to the blind.15Researchers at the Dobelle Institute, with its Arti-ficial Vision for the Blind program (formerly headquartered in Zurich,

with a laboratory in New York City; since 2001, headquartered in bon) have implanted electrodes connected to a digital camera/com-puter complex into the visual cortex of blind patients, restoring somedegree of sight In one case, the patient was even able to drive aroundthe parking lot of the hospital with some degree of restored vision.16

Lis-Investigators at Emory University in Atlanta have helped two tients with locked-in syndrome, a state in which the brain is consciousbut cannot produce any movement of the patient’s voluntary, skeletalmuscles The unfortunate patient is often thought to be in a persistentvegetative state The two received brain implants, into which their neu-rons grew, establishing a link with a computer This enabled the pa-tients to use their minds to control a cursor on a computer screen andthus communicate with others.17

pa-In June 2000, Chicago’s Optobionics Corporation implanted thefirst artificial retinas made from silicon chips in the eyes of three blindpatients suffering from retinitis pigmentosa Each implant was 2 milli-meters in diameter and 1/1,000 of an inch thick and contained approx-imately 3,500 microphotodiodes that converted light energy intoelectrical impulses to stimulate the remaining functional nerve cells ofthe retina.18

A team at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles isplanning to replace part of the hippocampus of rats with a special siliconchip The hippocampus is a crucial part of the brain where the layingdown and retrieval of memories is coordinated The implant would ineffect be a memory chip.19Though designed as a treatment to replacedamaged tissue in poststroke patients or patients with Alzheimer’s dis-ease, it is not difficult to imagine such a device (which at the time ofthis writing is estimated to be at least ten years off ) being used formemory augmentation for the normal as well.20Though this is exciting

on one level, devices such as this illustrate the significant technical andsafety issues involved in developing and employing neuroprostheses.Even if such a device could communicate with the rest of the brain instoring memories, there are still serious issues to be resolved Not onlydoes the hippocampus participate in memory, but it is also a significantcomponent of the brain pathways that affect awareness, consciousness,

and emotions Thus, how such a device may affect other significant ments of brain function and personality is unknown.

ele-Medical Nanotechnology

As the name implies, nanotechnology is engineering or manipulating

matter, and life, at nanometer scale—that is, one billionth of a meter.Ten hydrogen atoms side by side span 1 nanometer The deoxyribonu-cleic acid (DNA) molecule is 2.3 nanometers in diameter If such featswere possible, then it is conceivable that the structures of our bodiesand our current tools could be significantly altered In recent years,many governments around the world, including the United States withits National Nanotechnology Initiative, and scores of academic centersand corporations have committed increasing support for developing na-notechnology programs.21 For example, in 2003 the U.S Congresspassed by a wide margin the Nanotechnology Research and Develop-ment Act of 2003 (it was signed by the president on December 3),authorizing that $2.36 billion be spent over three years on nanotech-nology research.22

The idea behind nanotechnology originated with the physicist andNobel laureate Richard Feynman (1918–88) in a speech given at anannual meeting of the American Physical Society at the California Insti-tute of Technology in Pasadena on December 29, 1959 But the appli-cations remained to be pursued into the 1980s Feynman described thedevelopment of tools for molecular engineering—that is, building ma-terials molecule by molecule His startling claim was that this sort oftask would not require a new understanding of physics but rather wascompletely compatible with what scientists already understood aboutthe nature of fundamental forces and matter When scientific and tech-nological communities began to pursue Feynman’s vision, EricDrexler’s works—which both demonstrated the feasibility of such ma-nipulation from an engineering perspective and provided a vision forthe possible benefits of such technologies—sparked a flurry of activitythat continues to expand almost exponentially.23

The list of potential uses of nanotechnology continues to grow Anearly focus of research has been in the area of miniaturization of elec-tronic components,24but nanoscale materials may also dramatically im-prove the durability of materials used in machinery and potentiallycreate production methods that will be less polluting and more effi-cient The military has a significant interest in nanotechnology and hascreated the Center for Soldier Nanotechnologies (CSN).25Among theinitial aims of the CSN are creating stealth garments (and coatings) thatare difficult to see or detect, are highly durable, and may provide in-creased protection from penetrating objects; significantly reducing theweight of materials the individual must carry onto the field of battle;and developing devices to rapidly and accurately detect the presence ofbiological or chemical weapon attacks The CSN is interested in the use

of such technology to help create the seamless interface of electronicdevices with the human nervous system, engineering the cyborg soldier.Medical uses of microscopic, subcellular machines potentiallyinclude:

• rational drug-design devices specifically targeting and destroyingtumor cells26or infectious agents,27

• in vivo devices for at-the-site-of-need drug manufacture andrelease,

• drug-delivery systems,28

• tissue engineering or reengineering,

• early detection or monitoring devices,

• in vitro laboratory-on-a-chip diagnostic tools,29

• devices to clear existing atherosclerotic lesions in coronary or bral arteries, and

cere-• biomimetic nanostructures to repair or replace DNA or other ganelles, provide artificial replacements for red blood cells andplatelets,30augment or repair interaction between neurons in thebrain, improve biocompatibility and the interface between braintissue and cybernetic devices, and develop more durable prostheticdevices or implants.31

or-Such tools have also been envisioned to provide new means of cosmeticenhancement, such as new forms of weight control, changing hair

or skin color, removing unwanted hair, or producing new hairsimulations.32

The development of nanotechnology has taken two major pathways.The first is the so-called top-down approach, which attempts to directlymanipulate matter atom-by-atom and molecule-by-molecule This ap-proach is heavily dependent on high-technology machinery such asatomic force microscopy Other top-down approaches pursue a moretraditional chemistry-based approach, for example, the production ofcarbon nanowires or carbon spheres, such as buckminsterfullerene or

‘‘bucky balls.’’ Carbon nanowires have proved to be excellent tors and are being used in a variety of ways to develop new forms oftransistors and microscopic circuitry, leading to significant gains in theminiaturization of electronic devices Bucky balls are being evaluated asthe base for a variety of drug-delivery systems

conduc-The second approach, the bottom-up approach, recognizes that thebuilding blocks of life, all the enzymes and other components of eachliving cell, are already acting as little machines operating at the nano-scale This approach then tries to use biological materials in new anddifferent ways.33For example, a group of researchers led by Carlo Mon-temagno of Notre Dame University recognized that one of the criticalenzymes in each cell in our body, a protein that is involved in the stor-age of energy in a molecule called ATP, actually rotates around a centralaxis like a motor during its function.34This same enzyme can work inreverse, taking ATP, releasing its stored energy, and producing rotarymotion The researchers developed a process to attach a small metalpropeller to the central axis of this enzyme, called ATP-ase They thenexposed the new ‘‘molecular motors’’ to an energy source in the form

of a solution of ATP molecules, just like what they might encounter in

a living cell Some of the motors spun the propellers around their axes.Though only a minority of the engineered molecules were able to per-form this function (sometimes the propeller would fall off, etc.), some

of the motors worked for several hours Montemagno’s team has nowdevised a way to couple these motors to photosynthetic molecules sothat sunlight is converted into a steady source of ATP to fuel the molec-ular motors His group is also working on ways of synthetically produc-ing moving devices that propel themselves like amoebas

Dan Shu and Peixuan Guo have noted that certain forms of viralribonucleic acid (RNA) also bind ATP, releasing its energy and power-ing a DNA-packaging motor that enables the virus to be created withall the genetic material packed into the small capsule of each individualviron.35 This system indicates the significant amount of mechanicalforce that can be generated and applied at the molecular level.

Another bottom-up technique has been to use DNA, RNA, andother biomolecules, the fundamental molecules in our genes and geneexpression, as tools for computation or as structural components.36In

1994, Leonard Adleman at the University of California, Los Angeles,used DNA molecules to solve a complex mathematics problem known

as the Hamiltonian Path Problem Laura Landweber of Princeton versity reported in 2000 that her team had made an RNA computer tosolve a chess problem.37Others have used enzymes, normally involved

Uni-in the production, encodUni-ing, and decodUni-ing of genetic material, to ate analogs of digital logic devices, such as AND gates, OR gates, andNOR gates, similar to those that are used in the chips of calculators andcomputers

cre-Ehud Shapiro and colleagues at the Weizmann Institute of Science,Rehovot, Israel, have demonstrated that the DNA molecule also intrin-sically stores sufficient energy to power calculations using these mole-cules.38 Thus DNA provides not only the information but also thepower Shapiro believes that eventually (sometime in the next fiftyyears) biological devices will replace inorganic, silicon-based electron-ics In another fascinating report, Nicholas Mano, Fei Mao, and AdamHeller have described the development of a biofuel cell that operates atbody temperature and works off of our body’s normal physiologicfluids This could provide an intrinsic energy source for cybernetic de-vices.39Heller, of the University of Texas, Austin, invented this implant-able biofuel cell

Our cells also regularly produce structures that integrate inorganicmetals into proteins It has been shown to be quite feasible that DNAand cellular-controlled processes can be designed to construct mole-cules that will facilitate the biological–inorganic interface.40This wouldallow, for example, more seamless integration of our nervous systemwith electronic devices, furthering cybernetic developments A recent

report illustrates other uses for organic–inorganic melding Gold particles were attached to DNA molecules, serving as antennas Radiosignal controls were then used to cause the DNA to unwind and startproducing the protein encoded by the segment of DNA, producing inessence a radio-controlled switch for turning genes on and off Further,

nano-by manipulating or reprogramming cells at the molecular and geneticlevels, cells can also be turned into computers and factories, producingunique products or in vivo diagnostic and therapeutic devices that reactdynamically in real time to the surrounding environment

‘‘Enhancement’’ and Technological ‘‘Immortality’’

If many of the potential therapeutic uses listed above become reality,allowing more effective treatment of life’s greatest killers, such as can-cer, infectious disease, and vascular disease, it should be clear that lon-gevity could be greatly increased To the degree that these tools may beused to heal the diseased and disabled, we can rejoice But there arethose who predict that nanotechnology and cybernetics together willenable humankind to pursue a form of technological ‘‘immortality.’’Others, though looking forward to an increased life span, are more in-terested in ‘‘enhanced’’ function now.41 Some individuals, callingthemselves ‘‘transhumanists,’’ explicitly promote the reengineering ofhumankind into some form or forms of ‘‘posthuman’’ beings.42 Eventhe U.S government has invested in a controversial project to reengi-neer human beings.43Yet even if not adopting such as extreme view orgoal, it would seem that large numbers of individuals in the UnitedStates, and around the world, are enticed by all the potential technolo-gies of ‘‘enhancement.’’ The desires for modification may be rooted

in wishes for fashioning oneself into a more socially acceptable image,attempting to improve self-esteem through reengineering, or makingoneself more competitive in business, the professions, academia, or ath-letics Unfortunately, the motivations behind these desires are usuallysocially driven fears, experiences of rejection or failure, or just plaingreed, and they may reflect a social rather than biological pathology

Take, for example, the field of medicine somewhere between twentyyears and forty years from now Brain chips or wearable computers nowmake it possible for a physician to have immediate, twenty-four-hour/seven-day access to databases that contain all standard medical knowl-edge plus the latest medical information and practice guidelines Allongoing clinical trials are immediately identifiable This informationmight be obtainable via an external device, but this would require port-ing and might not be with the physician in the event of an emergency.Thus internal devices would be more efficient Internal devices may alsopossess a variety of other desirable capabilities that wearables do not.For instance, the device may rehearse procedures in the visual andmotor cortex, allowing physicians to maintain a high state of proficiency

in a vast array of surgical procedures, even if not performed frequently.Indwelling nanodevices in the implant could provide pharmacological

or direct neural stimulation to maintain alertness and calm With thedevice, the cyborg physician might, by simply thinking it, summon col-leagues for a consultation or call emergency personnel If, as a patent,you were given a choice, would you want a physician with capabilitieslike this, or the standard nonaugmented model, dependent on a limitedmemory and personal experience and also potentially sleep deprivedand grumpy? It is not difficult to imagine that there would be strongprofessional and social forces—not to mention huge differentials inmalpractice premiums—compelling physicians to undergo cyberneticand nanotechnological modification (If cyborg docs could be replaced

by fully robotic nonhuman physicians, or robo-docs, then so much the

better.) This could be true for many other professions as well, including

law, engineering, finance, and the military.44 Individuals may indeeddissent and decline technological augmentation, but such dissenterswill find job options increasingly scarce Moreover, the fundamentallyhuman relationship between a physician and her patient will be alteredradically by technology.

Because business networks, and essentially all systems of cyborgs,will require increasing levels of cooperation and harmonious coordina-tion to improve the efficiency of the system and thus ensure the contin-ued use of the prostheses, the devices themselves will be engineered ormodified to introduce means of controlling or modulating emotion topromote these values Meanwhile, also in the name of efficiency andsocietal harmony, the network will be increasingly controlled by centralplanning structures to facilitate these undeniably legitimate goals.Though everyone still considers himself or herself fully autonomous, inreality behavior increasingly will be controlled and modulated Is this

an unlikely science fiction scenario? Not really Each of these gies is being developed at the writing of this book Our competitive,narcissistic society is already driving individuals to pursue any and allmeans to ‘‘get ahead.’’

technolo-The technologies of reengineering, and the question of how technologies are developed and used, raise many concerns—concernsthat require a clear understanding of the nature of human beings, ourpurposes for existence, and our personal, social, and environmental re-sponsibilities From these fundamental anthropological questions, wethen must ask, what is the nature of technology? Are there appropriategoals and limits to the development and use of technology? What arethe legitimate goals of medicine and medical technology? What should

bio-we expect from one another? Should bio-we pursue the quest of ing’’ ourselves when we have no real standard of what perfection wouldlook like? Or should we simply allow market forces to regulate the eth-ics? With the costs of medical interventions for the purposes of healingalready staggering, is it appropriate to develop and use devices that aresolely for reengineering ourselves? Can we develop tools that have po-tential for healing but at the cost of destroying or demeaning otherhuman beings in the process?

‘‘perfect-In the chapters that follow, our goal is to address these questions.

We do so by following what we believe is a logical sequence of keyquestions needed to develop a framework for the evaluation of biotech-nology, because each subsequent question depends on the answers tothe preceding ones:

1 What is the nature of the human being?

2 What is the social nature and communal responsibility of humanbeings?

3 What is the nature of technology, including biotechnology?

4 What is the nature of medicine as a specific technology?

5 How then should we evaluate technologies, particularly

biotechnologies?

The answers to these questions are necessarily based on a worldview,

an understanding of the nature of reality, the context in which all theseissues find their existence It is only in carefully evaluating the manycompeting worldviews and concluding which is most consistent withthe evidence that can we answer the major questions in such a way as

to promote human flourishing We therefore focus the next chapter onthe critical foundation of worldview

Humanity and the Technological Narrative

The very identity of the human person and the very substance of reality

are presumably called into question by developments in artificial

intelli-gence, in genetics, and in virtual reality Reactions to these prospects are

as divided as they are to carnival rides—they produce exhilaration in

some people and vertigo in others

—Albert Borgmann, ‘‘On the Blessings of Calamity

and the Burdens of Good Fortune’’

TECHNOLOGIESare teleological That is to say, they have certain goals or purposes Teleologies are value laden Good ends are sometimes

pursued, bad ends are sometimes pursued, and there is always the bility that a technological aim is indifferent Clearly, then, technology

possi-is not an unqualified good Thpossi-is may come as no small surprpossi-ise to ourtechnologically saturated society Many Westerners—and most NorthAmericans—are not only technological optimists but also technologicalutopians If a technology can help us perform a task faster, easier, andmore powerfully, then most people believe it is necessarily a good thing.Yet because technologies, including biotechnologies, are value laden,they may be morally good, bad, or indifferent So the values that shape,inform, and provide the impetus for technology must be examined

Furthermore, the choice to develop certain technologies reveals agreat deal about one’s understandings of the purpose of a given tech-nology Technologies may also carry hidden costs, or as Tenner puts it

so vividly, they sometimes ‘‘bite back.’’1

For instance, in the 1960s the snowmobile revolution took the tic by storm The Skolt Lapps of northeastern Finland had made theirliving for centuries by herding reindeer After World War II, the Skoltswere given a choice either to return to rule by the Soviet Union or tocome under the Finnish government They chose the latter By the late1950s, about fifty Skolt households survived, consisting largely of nu-clear families still loyal to the Russian Orthodox Church In the prewardays, the Skolts relied mainly on fishing for their food supply Reindeerwere a secondary food supply Not only so, however, the reindeer werealso the principal means of income Reindeer meat, hides, and otherparts were traded for cash to buy the modern necessities such as flour,sugar, coffee, tea, and nonfood commodities such as medicine Theethnographer Pertti J Pelto observes that ‘‘as long as a man had rein-deer herds he could always get food for his family, and he could alsosell animals to get needed cash.’’2

Arc-Before the introduction of the snowmobile, reindeer had been ered in domesticated herds grazing pastorally in the Arctic tundra (if

gath-‘‘pastorally’’ and ‘‘tundra’’ are not an oxymoron) In 1960, there wereforty-one active herders Throughout the next decade, the technologi-zation of reindeer herding radically altered Skolt society As the snow-mobile became the preferred method of herding, the reindeer were de-domesticated Because the snowmobile provided a fast and efficientmeans for gathering the animals, they could be allowed to run wilduntil it became necessary to round them up De-domestication camewith certain costs to the animals, however Because herding changedfrom a peaceful process to a chaotic rampage, the reindeer experienced

an increased incidence of lung damage as they bolted from the growlingsnowmobiles Also, the shift from pastoral herding to mechanicalround-ups lowered the weight of the reindeer population; this, in turn,resulted in low-birthweight calves and a less healthy herd

Moreover, the snowmobile revolution resulted in economic sion and socioeconomic stratification As the costs of herding escalatedwith the costs of the technology and the petroleum products required

depres-to operate the technology, fewer Skolts could afford depres-to herd reindeer.The cost to produce one animal rose from $1.30 in 1963 to $3.30 in

1969 Only one-third of herders in 1960 were still herding in 1971

Pelto opines that ‘‘the advent of mechanized herding had created asituation of ‘technological unemployment’ for the men who wereforced out of full-time herding activities.’’3

Atlhough this story reveals the downside of technology, hundreds ofthousands of stories could be told of how technology has revolution-ized society for good From simple tools to space exploration, sometechnologies have improved human, animal, and other creatures’ qual-ity of life

In this chapter, we explore the development of technologies as auniquely human activity rooted in our own understanding of our role

in the world The way humans understand their role(s) in the worldunderwrites the impetus for technological expansion—it reveals theirunderstanding of the teleology of technology Especially in the Ameri-can context, a Judeo-Christian worldview has provided the constructfor the development and use of technology However, even amongJewish and Christian theists, there is more than one way of understand-ing the role of human technological expansion Here we elucidate sev-eral possible ways of understanding our role and argue for a model ofresponsible technological stewardship

The Role of Technology’s Foundation Stories

In America as Second Creation: Technologies and Narratives of New

Be-ginnings, David E Nye, professor of American Studies at Odense

Uni-versity in Denmark, explores the role of technology through the lens of

what he calls foundation stories These narratives provide a useful and

illuminating means of analyzing the teleology of technology cans,’’ says Nye, ‘‘constructed technological foundation stories primar-ily to explain their place in the New World.’’4He argues that Americanssaw this new world as an opportunity for a second creation In fact, they

‘‘Ameri-saw re-creation as a moral imperative and as necessary to their existence.

The Second-Creation Narrative

Though invoked at different times and on varied occasions, creation technological foundation stories participate in a similar struc-ture, as follows:

second-• A group (or an individual) enters an undeveloped region.

• They have one or more new technologies

• Using the new technologies, they transform a part of the region

• The new settlement prospers, and more settlers arrive

• Land values increase, and some settlers become wealthy

• The original landscape disappears and is replaced by a second ation largely shaped by the new technology

cre-The process begins again as some members of the community departfor another undeveloped region.5

This is largely the outline of the story of the American technologicalfounding (and, we might add, the story of contemporary biotechnol-ogy) The story has, according to Nye, four acts The first act is thenarrative of the axe James Fenimore Cooper famously exclaimed:

The American axe! It has made more real and lasting conquests than the

sword of any warlike people that ever lived, but they have been conquests

that have left civilization in their train instead of havoc and desolation.6

Or as Timothy Walker put it in the North American Review in 1831:

Where she [nature] denied us rivers, Mechanism has supplied them

Where she has left our planet uncomfortably rough, Mechanism has

ap-plied the roller Where the mountains have been found in the way,

Mech-anism has boldly leveled or cut through them.7

The axe permitted mastery of the unimproved natural resources.With each fateful blow, the untamed wilderness was brought into sub-jection, rendering it domesticated and inhabitable, not to mention mar-ketable The prevailing notion of property acquisition at our nation’sfounding was John Locke’s theory of the labor acquisition of property:

Before the Appropriation of Land, he who gathered as much of the wild

Fruit, killed, caught, or tamed, as many of the Beasts as he could; he that

so employed his Pains about any of the spontaneous Products of Nature,

as any way to alter them, from the state which Nature put them in, by

placing any of his Labour on them, did thereby acquire a Property in

them.8

For Locke, because the body is one’s property and because the ment of labor is an extension of one’s body, the commons become per-sonal property when one’s labor is used to tame nature.9 And ourforebears did tame nature.

employ-According to Nye, the second act of America’s foundation story isthe era of the water-driven mill The mill was another method of har-nessing the power of nature to establish the second creation And herethe efficiency motif is clearly in evidence For instance, as the award-winning historian of technology Eugene Ferguson notes:

To grind a bushel of wheat to flour requires about two horsepower-hours

of work, the equivalent of two man-days of strenuous effort In a

horse-drawn mill, the process would require a third of a day, while a water mill

of moderate size might produce fifty bushels of flour a day.10

The third act in the second-creation narrative, according to Nye, wasthe era of the canal and railroad Mechanized transportation conqueredthe problem of space Technological expansion was not without its crit-ics As early as 1839, Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote in his journal: ‘‘Thisinvasion of Nature by Trade with its Money, its Credit, its Steam, itsRailroad, threatens to upset the balance of man, & establish a new Uni-versal Monarchy more tyrannical than Babylon or Rome.’’11Neverthe-less, the technocrats won the day with then–House of Representativesmember John C Calhoun’s cry:

Let us bind the Republic together with a perfect system of roads and

canals Let us conquer space.12

The final act in America’s foundation story was irrigation, according

to Nye Irrigation made it possible to declare independence from thefickle clouds by bringing the rivers into servitude to fuel the factories inthe field The U.S Reclamation Bureau built dams, canals, and irriga-tion systems with a view toward turning arid lands into lush Edens.Paradise would be regained

Nye does a masterful job showing how second-creation stories vaded the American sense of the past by 1900 Obviously, competing

per-stories were told, but they by no means captured the American tion the way the second-creation story did.

imagina-Another social historian and philosopher of technology provides asimilar account of the evolution of technology In his monumental

study Technics and Civilization, Lewis Mumford chronicles four stages

of human technological invention.13Each stage represents phases in theeffort to exploit raw materials and natural resources in the development

of the so-called machine age The first stage was what Mumford called

the age of eotechnics—‘‘the dawn of the age of modern technics.’’14

Eotechnics embodied the era of water and wood, when human tion consisted in the manipulation of the forces of nature Windmillsand waterwheels harnessed the energy that had been the object of an-cient veneration—wind and water Wood was used for building theeotechnic era but, more important, during this period all three (wind,water, and wood) were combined to manufacture sailing vessels

produc-The next phase, the paleotechnic phase, resulted in the Industrial

Revolution Coal and iron were employed to produce the energy site for mass production Mumford maintained that the paleotechnicage reached it apogee in ‘‘the great industrial exhibition in the newCrystal Palace at Hyde Park in 1851: the first World Exposition, anapparent victory for free trade, free enterprise, free invention, and freeaccess to the world’s markets by the country that boasted already that

requi-it was the workshop of the world.’’15

The third stage was the neotechnic era During this phase in the

evo-lution of technology, electricity became a new form of energy At thesame time, the neotechnic age saw the invention of a host of new syn-thetic compounds, including celluloid, Bakelite, and synthetic resins.Furthermore, the high level of conductivity required by the use of elec-tricity led to the exploitation of copper and aluminum The neotechnicage also celebrated the invention of the internal combustion engine, arevolutionary innovation indeed

Finally, and most important for our purposes, Mumford pointed to

what he called the ‘‘biotechnic period, already visible on the horizon’’

in 1934, when he wrote Technics and Civilization This stage would be

characterized, he prophesied, by a ‘‘completer integration of the chine with human needs and desires.’’16

ma-Mumford further argued that the machine ‘‘devaluated’’ rarity cause machines could produce a million copies of the master model),age (because machines placed emphasis on adaptation and innovation),and archaic taste (because machines established new standards ofvalue) The upshot of the evolution of the machine, for Mumford,meant that ‘‘we cannot intelligently accept the practical benefits ofthe machine without accepting its moral imperatives and aestheticforms.’’17

(be-Mumford may well have been playing the role of cultural prophetwhen he said presciently that ‘‘technics, instead of benefiting by its ab-straction from life, will benefit even more greatly by its integration withit.’’18The emergence of biotechnology is a case in point Animated byboth the machine metaphor and the second-creation narrative, biotech-nology now seeks mastery over our own biology—bringing it into sub-mission, exercising labor-added property rights, and the like—in theeffort to remake the natural order and subdue it for our own ends

The Recovery Narrative

The second-creation story is not the only way to construe our logical relationship to the natural world The recovery narrative offers acompeting vision Rather than reject the technological creation story,the recovery narrative emphasizes the spoiling of the landscape and thecorruption of natural resources through arrogant exploitation Accord-ing to this account, notes Nye, selfish individualists have imposed free-market values on creation for short-term gain.19 Pollution, erosion,degradation, and misuse constitute the storyline of this narrative Con-sequently, the recovery story emphasizes initiatives to repair, preserve,and repristinate nature Says Nye: ‘‘The process began with the preser-vation of Yosemite in 1864 and Yellowstone in 1871 and continuedwith the establishment of state and national forests.’’20The decommer-cialization of Niagara Falls and the turning of its shores into nationalparks exemplify the direction of the recovery narrative during the twen-tieth century This is a narrative characterized by federal laws, environ-mental regulations, and managed preservation

techno-The Wilderness Tale

A final narrative describing the American technological experience isthe wilderness tale, argues Nye ‘‘If the conservation movement re-wrote second creation into a recovery narrative, the wilderness move-ment wanted to keep some portion of nature pure and prevent it from

becoming a part of any human story’’ ( emphasis added).21In this rative, humans are never the hosts, they are always the guests of nature;interlopers, if you will Wilderness is always the foil to civilization andexploitation In this narrative, pristine wilderness is viewed as more per-fect than any human-made so-called improvement Rather than impos-ing human ideals on the back of nature, ‘‘the wilderness story [is] aboutecologists who [try] to think like a mountain.’’22Nye gives an example

nar-of that form nar-of storytelling when he appeals to authors such as JimO’Brien:

Imagine the settlement of the United States from the viewpoint of

ani-mals Jim O’Brien’s often-reprinted essay ‘‘A Beaver’s Perspective on

North American History’’ begins before any humans had arrived Beavers

dammed streams, created small canals and ponds and reshaped the

land-scape in ways that affected the larger biotic community The beaver

pop-ulation, which may have reached 60 million at its height, went into

decline with the arrival of the European fur trade O’Brien’s narrative

radically reconsiders American history as a catastrophe.23

For many who read the story of universe through the lens of thewilderness narrative, human beings are either mere appendages to thecreated order or, worse, enemies We are either guests or invaders, nothosts and caregivers The order itself is exalted as perfect, a living organ-ism, which if only left alone would continue its own glorious existence.Though this narrative may offer attractive features, it seems to ignore

or at least underestimate the reality of a fallen order where the world isnot self-preserving and self-improving

Shortcomings of the Three Foundation Narratives

Each of these narratives seems problematic to us For example, thesecond-creation narrative sees the role of technology as characterized

by mastery through the application of force for the purpose of humanaggrandizement The recovery narrative, though laudable in some re-spects, risks offering too little too late Some natural resources, oncesquandered, may not be recoverable Moreover, the arrogant exploita-tion of some resources (e.g., the atmosphere) might be lethal The wil-derness narrative seems to lead to the conclusion that nature, if leftunspoiled, is already perfect This means ignoring natural disasters liketornados, volcanoes, and droughts Pristine wilderness is hardly blood-less and genteel The law of tooth and talon reigns in places where thebeauty of the wild masks its ferocity Surely, even the most idyllic wil-derness is not the best of all possible worlds.

Responsible Technological Stewardship

Over against these three narratives, we pose yet a fourth narrative:

responsible technological stewardship, grounded in a biblical-theological

understanding of human relationship with God, with the creation, andwith one’s neighbors

What is technology? The economist John Kenneth Galbraith has fined technology as ‘‘the application of organized knowledge.’’24

de-Though that expression may define technology in its very broadestterms, as a definition it seems less than illuminating The Calvin Collegepolitical science professor Steven V Monsma offers a very helpful defi-nition when he and his colleagues say, ‘‘We can define technology as adistinct human cultural activity in which humans exercise freedom andresponsibility in response to God by forming and transforming the nat-ural creation, with the aid of tools and procedures, for practical endsand purposes.’’25

Five elements inform Monsma’s definition Technology is, first, an

activity It is the activity of Homo faber (humans, the makers or tors) Moreover, it is an activity of Homo faber in community with oth-

fabrica-ers This emphasizes among other things that individuals are in relation

to other individuals Technology is not autonomous, and neither aretechnologists.26The teleology of technological development must takeneighbors into account

Second, in Monsma’s definition, technology involves persons cising freedom and responsibility in response to God This notion is set

exer-against technological determinism We are not governed by gies; we make choices about technology To quote an earlier work by

technolo-Nye:

Machines are not like meteors that come unbidden from outside and

have an ‘‘impact.’’ Rather, human beings make choices when inventing,

marketing, and using a new device.27

These choices are informed by our values, our notions of right andwrong, our understandings of justice, and our social preferences

Third, according to Monsma, technology is a transformational ect We apply our choices to the environment around us, both organicand inert, both living and nonliving We form existing objects, and wetransform or manipulate objects from one form to another Technolog-ical activity is not meant to sustain status quo but rather to alter ourenvironment in one way or another

proj-Tools and procedures are, fourth, the means by which we form andtransform In this definition, technology is not first an object but anactivity Granted, technological artifacts result from this activity, buttechnology is not a ‘‘thing’’—it is a behavior, the application of whichuses tools and processes

Fifth and finally, in Monsma’s definition, the tools and proceduresare aimed at practical ends This feature separates technology from art.Utility is important to technology Making and doing are aimed atachieving some practical goal Art serves different ends

The most important aspect of Monsma’s definition, vis-a`-vis otherdefinitions, is its theocentricity Because technology is the exercise of

human freedom and human responsibility in relation to God, its

appli-cation requires a careful stewardship Responsible stewardship is theteleology of technology Stewardship implies accountability Account-ability implies that something is ‘‘given’’ for which one stands account-able as a steward or caregiver

Technology and Biblical Anthropology

The notion of responsible technology is consistent with a biblical thropology of technology Let us trace the lineaments of such an an-thropology First, God made the world (Gen 1:1) Ultimately,everything is preowned by the sovereign Creator Because everything iscreated by God—from light to darkness to animals to humankind—everything belongs to Him As the Psalmist says: ‘‘The earth is theLord’s and the fullness thereof, the world and those who dwell therein,for he has founded it upon the seas and established it upon the rivers’’(Ps 24:1, New Revised Standard Version translation) Furthermore,from the beginning, humankind was commanded to ‘‘be fruitful andmultiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over thefish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every thingthat moves on the earth’’ (Gen 1:28) Again, as the Psalmist exclaims,

an-‘‘You have given [humankind] dominion over the works of your hands;you have put all things under his feet’’ (Ps 8:6)

We are told in Genesis something about the character of this ion when humankind was given the command to tend the Garden:

domin-‘‘The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to

work it and keep it’’ (Gen 2:15) To work it and keep it The Hebrew word translated ‘‘work’’ here is easy enough to understand; it is abad.

It is sometimes translated as ‘‘to till’’ (Gen 3:23, 4:2, 12) ‘‘Keep it’’

is the word shamar, and it specifies the nature of Adam’s labor

Interest-ingly, the word is used of the occupation of Abel (Gen 4:9), who caredfor the land and his flocks The word is also used (in Gen 28:15, 20)

of protecting persons When God appeared in Jacob’s dream, He said

he would ‘‘keep him’’ wherever he went Finally, the word is used ofthe priests who ‘‘served’’ God, faithfully carrying out His instructions(Lev 8:35; Num 1:53, 18:5) Thus, stewardship over the creation mil-itates against worshiping the creation, and accountability to the Creatorserves to check against abusing the creation Both responses to creationare to be avoided Stewardship sees to it that they are

Furthermore, though the exact boundaries are not drawn for us, wecan infer from the Creation account that some knowledge is meant to

be possessed by stewards and some is not: